Why is convalidation of marriage so difficult?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m wondering if any of you have been involved in any way in a convalidation of a marriage.

Here is a link to a very good article about convalidation:

idotaketwo.com/marriage-convalidation.html

Here is an excerpt from that article:

This is exactly what I have been posting, but for whatever reason, all of you who have no experience with convalidation refuse to believe me. Those who marry outside the Church have committed a grave sin and are not in a sacramental marriage. But that does not change the fact that they are legally married. I don’t know how to make that any clearer. They are not in the same state as those who have never been married. A marriage outside the church is illicit and invalid, but it is not illegal, and it is an actual marriage, albeit not a sacramental marriage. A couple has all the rights that the state grants to married couples, but it does not have the blessings and rights granted to it by the Church. That is the big difference. And the Church recognizes this. That is why it is not the same ceremony as that of a regular wedding.

You will all be glad to know that is my last word on the subject. I will leave you to believe whatever you want.

Mary

Did you notice the bottom of the page: NC Gay Weddings and Trends Challenging the Church Today. I think I’d find another site to get my Catholic theology from.

 

[Phemie]

Marriage between a catholic and a non Catholic can be done outside the church itself since it is not a sacrament. This is with permission from the Ordinary of course.

Correction, marriage between a Catholic and non-baptized is not a sacrament. In my case I was marrying a baptized member of the United Church, very much a sacrament. Ironically, had I married him 15 years earlier I might not have been able to marry in the Church proper, but only in the office or sacristy as was the case with my cousin who married an Anglican.

The point that the others are trying to make to you is that the wedding vows in the catholic rite supercede any civil vows . That convalidation involves a new consent of the will.

**Canon 1160 For a marriage which is invalid because of defect of form to become valid, it must be contracted anew in the canonical form, without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1127.3 [4].

**IOW, the Marriage Rite, the actual words spoken, are exactly the same, whether it’s a convalidation or a ‘regular’ marriage. It’s all the trappings that surround the Rite that may be different - and even there that varies. I’ve seen convalidations that were more elaborate than my own ‘regular’ wedding but the words spoken by the bride and groom are the same.

• The greeting
• The question about whether you are coming at this of your own free will
• The exchange of consent/vows
• The blessing and exchange of rings (which is cultural, not mandatory)
• The Nuptial Blessing.

 

[rayne89]

Sorry I’m breaking my word but I have to correct one thing you wrote. You could not have done this in the parish office. You must either get married in a Catholic church or another holy place. A Catholic ceremony cannot take place just anywhere and be valid.

Could I have sources please that a convalidation ceremony is exactly the same as a regular wedding? That certainly wasn’t my experience.

Brooklyn I agree with you in a lot of what you said, I had my marriage convalidated in 2004 quite easily but it is the same ceremony as a marriage of two people who marry in the church the first time. It may be shorter than the average Catholic wedding we see most of the time but it is the same ceremony. In our parish bulletin our marriage in the church (convalidation) was announced with the other upcoming weddings in the same way as the other couples were. It was funny to see my first name with my maiden in print after 13 years.

We had guests, I had flowers, our witnesses were matron of honor and best man and our daughter was our flower girl because we chose to do it that way. Our original wedding was at a wedding chapel so it wasn’t like we had a huge wedding the first time. The vows are done exactly as they would be for every other Catholic marriage. During the homily the priest explained the importance of the sacrament of marriage.

I also feel I have been married 18 years even though I’ve only been married in the church for 5 because I know when I said those vows 18 years ago I meant them for life. Its easier for those who are not in a situation where their marriage was never invalid in the eyes of the church to say you were never married until your convalidation because they aren’t your shoes or mine. I married my husband 18 years ago, I did the best I could with my life experience at the time and in my heart no one can tell me I was not married until 2004. Married invalidly yes -but not never married.

So I understand your frustration. It is true that convalidation is a marriage though, it is a sacramental marriage in the church and it is the same thing as two catholics getting married for the first time in the church as far as the rite goes.

 

[Seatuck]

Phemie, Thank you yes. I meant a Catholic and a non baptized Catholic. I’m having trouble with the internet over here and I lost what I wrote twice and then my computer crashed.

 

[ByzCath08]

We had our marriage convalidated just about 1 year ago. We were married by a non-catholic minister 13 years prior to the convalidation. We simply were young & ignorant of our faith.

Our process was very smooth. We met with our Priest to go over the marriage information sheet, swore on the Bible that all of the information we gave was the truth and that was it. He didn 't make us attend a pre-cana class or anything like that. I told him I was surprised as I had heard about others having to do pre cana and his reply was, you’ve been married for 13 years(albeit in a civil manner), together for 18 years; I am quite confident that you are a good fit for each other. After that, we set a date during a Saturday liturgy, went to confession, lived as brother & sister during the interim and it was all official.

 

[Phemie]

Brooklyn I agree with you in a lot of what you said, I had my marriage convalidated in 2004 quite easily but it is the same ceremony as a marriage of two people who marry in the church the first time. It may be shorter than the average Catholic wedding we see most of the time but it is the same ceremony. In our parish bulletin our marriage in the church (convalidation) was announced with the other upcoming weddings in the same way as the other couples were. It was funny to see my first name with my maiden in print after 13 years.

So in your case your banns were published along with those of other couples who were getting married, for the same purpose as theirs were published: to see if there were any impediments to your religious marriage.

So I understand your frustration. It is true that convalidation is a marriage though, it is a sacramental marriage in the church and it is the same thing as two catholics getting married for the first time in the church as far as the rite goes.

Thank you. That’s all we’ve been trying to say. It’s the same ceremony and the priest is under the same obligation to ensure that the couple is prepared for the religious marriage as would be if this were just a regular, every day wedding. And in today’s society that means getting all the affidavits, etc that are not really necessary if you publish banns &/or the couple grew up in the same parish as they are marrying.

 

[Brooklyn]

Ok everyone, I will do a partial mea culpa here - the words used in the convalidation ceremony are the same as a regular wedding, because it is the same sacrament and the same vows are being exchanged.

But the reason the OP started this post was to ask why he had to jump through so many hoops to have his marriage convalidated after 20 years of legal marriage and 3 kids. And my response is that there should not be that many hoops because he is in a very different position than two people who do not have a marriage license between them. Most people going through convalidation have one short meeting with the priest to ensure that they are indeed baptized and confirmed Catholics, that they are legally married in the eyes of the state and that there are no prior marriages and divorces between them. With most parishes you have to give at least 6 months notice before getting married. With a convalidation, most priests will schedule it for the next open time they have, be it on a weekday or a weekend. My husband and I had our marriage convalidated 2 weeks after meeting with the priest. Most priests do not require pre cana or any other counseling. We certainly were not required to go through any counseling, and those who have posted on this thread have stated that is also true for them.

Therefore, I think that what the OP in this post is going through is entirely unnecessary and it is delaying the blessing of his marriage that he should have, and he cannot receive the sacraments either until the convalidation of his marriage. So many of you were saying that he should be going through the same process as a never married couple, and that is just wrong. He is married, albeit not validly in the Church, and that should be taken into consideration.

Mary

 

[Koneko]

Ok everyone, I will do a partial mea culpa here - the words used in the convalidation ceremony are the same as a regular wedding, because it is the same sacrament and the same vows are being exchanged.

But the reason the OP started this post was to ask why he had to jump through so many hoops to have his marriage convalidated after 20 years of legal marriage and 3 kids. And my response is that there should not be that many hoops because he is in a very different position than two people who do not have a marriage license between them. Most people going through convalidation have one short meeting with the priest to ensure that they are indeed baptized and confirmed Catholics, that they are legally married in the eyes of the state and that there are no prior marriages and divorces between them. With most parishes you have to give at least 6 months notice before getting married. With a convalidation, most priests will schedule it for the next open time they have, be it on a weekday or a weekend. My husband and I had our marriage convalidated 2 weeks after meeting with the priest. Most priests do not require pre cana or any other counseling. We certainly were not required to go through any counseling, and those who have posted on this thread have stated that is also true for them.

Therefore, I think that what the OP in this post is going through is entirely unnecessary and it is delaying the blessing of his marriage that he should have, and he cannot receive the sacraments either until the convalidation of his marriage. So many of you were saying that he should be going through the same process as a never married couple, and that is just wrong. He is married, albeit not validly in the Church, and that should be taken into consideration.

Mary

Thanks again for all of your posts, Brooklyn. They have really helped us. You have the exact same perspective as I have had from the beginning.

Maybe someone can help me understand something else.

1. At the time we were married, we had vows and we both believed in our hearts that we would stay together forever. It is my understanding that the Catholic church says it is ok for me to leave my wife and family tomorrow and get married to someone else.
2. Two protestant people can go through their own “method” of marriage, yet their marriage is valid.
3. If I get married in the Catholic church, my wife and I are giving the sacrament to each other and the priest is just a witness.

So my questions are, what is special about the 3rd case that is different from the first? If that process is needed, why is the second case valid? If we believed in our hearts that we would keep our vows, is it still ok for us to divorce and marry again after 20, 30 years and many children?

 

[Brooklyn]

Thanks again for all of your posts, Brooklyn. They have really helped us. You have the exact same perspective as I have had from the beginning.

Maybe someone can help me understand something else.

1. At the time we were married, we had vows and we both believed in our hearts that we would stay together forever. It is my understanding that the Catholic church says it is ok for me to leave my wife and family tomorrow and get married to someone else.
2. Two protestant people can go through their own “method” of marriage, yet their marriage is valid.
3. If I get married in the Catholic church, my wife and I are giving the sacrament to each other and the priest is just a witness.

So my questions are, what is special about the 3rd case that is different from the first? If that process is needed, why is the second case valid? If we believed in our hearts that we would keep our vows, is it still ok for us to divorce and marry again after 20, 30 years and many children?

You’re quite welcome. I really am glad that my experience is able to help you.

I’m sure there are other people who can answer your questions better than me, but for what it’s worth, here are my answers:

I could be wrong, but if you are not married in the Church, the Church would not recognize your marriage, but you couldn’t just walk away. The Church would have to grant you an annulment. The Church, of course, does not recognize divorce, but an annulment says you were never validly married. And if you are not validly married in the Church, that is not a binding marriage as far as the Church is concerned. The Church would need to pronounce it as such, thus freeing you to walk away.

The priest, or deacon, is necessary because he is the one through whom the sacrament is given. I don’t believe a priest is as necessary as in the sacraments of confession and communion (those absolutely cannot be done without a priest). That is why a deacon as well as a priest can perform a marriage. I would think that you would want someone there who can say all the right words and prayers, and someone who can actually bless your marriage. That cannot be done in a civil marriage, and for a Catholic, without a special dispensation, that cannot be done in a non-Catholic church. In fact, even with a dispensation, and even though the marriage may be valid, it is not considered a sacramental marriage if not performed in the Church.

I’m not sure you asked but the reason the Church recognizes marriages from other churches is because the people in those churches are not Catholic and thus not subject to the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic church. This is a reason why priests will usually not baptize a child unless the parents promise to raise the child as a Catholic. Baptism is real, not just symbolic, as are all the sacraments. Once a person is baptized into the Church, they are subject to the church teachings whether they know them or not. So if a person is a baptized Catholic, even tho they may not realize it, no marriage they enter into will be recognized by the Church unless it is done in the Church.

Sorry for being so wordy, and I leave myself open to correction from others.

Mary

 

[Phemie]

I could be wrong, but if you are not married in the Church, the Church would not recognize your marriage, but you couldn’t just walk away. The Church would have to grant you an annulment. The Church, of course, does not recognize divorce, but an annulment says you were never validly married. And if you are not validly married in the Church, that is not a binding marriage as far as the Church is concerned. The Church would need to pronounce it as such, thus freeing you to walk away.

Yes, usually once the couple is divorced all the documents concerning that marriage & divorce are forwarded to the Marriage Tribunal for review. It’s not absolutely necessary, since the marriage of a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation is not considered valid but most Bishops prefer to go that route.

The priest, or deacon, is necessary because he is the one through whom the sacrament is given. I don’t believe a priest is as necessary as in the sacraments of confession and communion (those absolutely cannot be done without a priest). That is why a deacon as well as a priest can perform a marriage.

Not quite. The couple confer the sacrament on each other, the priest/deacon simply witness the exchange of consent. A lay person appointed by the Bishop with Rome’s approval may also witness the couple’s exchange of consent. This is rare but it does happen in remote areas, in fact one parish in our diocese had a Sister of Mercy who had been appointed to do so. IIRC she only witnessed one wedding in the years she was there.

I would think that you would want someone there who can say all the right words and prayers, and someone who can actually bless your marriage. That cannot be done in a civil marriage, and for a Catholic, without a special dispensation, that cannot be done in a non-Catholic church. In fact, even with a dispensation, and even though the marriage may be valid, it is not considered a sacramental marriage if not performed in the Church.

No, that’s not right. If the marriage is valid, IOW all the dispensations are in place, and both parties are baptized, the marriage is sacramental even if it happened in the garden or at City Hall.

I’m not sure you asked but the reason the Church recognizes marriages from other churches is because the people in those churches are not Catholic and thus not subject to the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic church. This is a reason why priests will usually not baptize a child unless the parents promise to raise the child as a Catholic. Baptism is real, not just symbolic, as are all the sacraments. Once a person is baptized into the Church, they are subject to the church teachings whether they know them or not. So if a person is a baptized Catholic, even tho they may not realize it, no marriage they enter into will be recognized by the Church unless it is done in the Church.

Sorry for being so wordy, and I leave myself open to correction from others.

Mary

 

[kage_ar]

I could be wrong, but if you are not married in the Church, the Church would not recognize your marriage, but you couldn’t just walk away.

In a sterile, legalistic way, he could walk away.

According to the Church, they are not husband and wife. They could seek a civil divorce and the Church would issue a form that says the legal marriage was non-existant due to a “defect of form”.

 

[Brooklyn]

Phemie:

Originally Posted by Brooklyn
I would think that you would want someone there who can say all the right words and prayers, and someone who can actually bless your marriage. That cannot be done in a civil marriage, and for a Catholic, without a special dispensation, that cannot be done in a non-Catholic church. In fact, even with a dispensation, and even though the marriage may be valid, it is not considered a sacramental marriage if not performed in the Church.

No, that’s not right. If the marriage is valid, IOW all the dispensations are in place, and both parties are baptized, the marriage is sacramental even if it happened in the garden or at City Hall.

Thanks for the corrections. But there is one thing I must correct. A Catholic wedding must take place in a Catholic Church or other sacred place, according to the United States Conference of Catholics Bishop website:

usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

1. Why does a Catholic wedding have to take place in a church?

For Catholics, marriage is not just a social or family event, but a church event. For this reason, the Church prefers that marriages between Catholics, or between Catholics and other Christians, be celebrated in the parish church of one of the spouses. Only the local bishop can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

 

[Koneko]

I’m really trying to get to the heart of what makes the sacramental marriage valid. It is not the process because marriages outside the church are valid. It is also not the intent because my marriage is considered invalid.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks for the corrections. But there is one thing I must correct. A Catholic wedding must take place in a Catholic Church or other sacred place, according to the United States Conference of Catholics Bishop website:

usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

But I did say ‘with the proper dispensation’. A Catholic with a dispensation from canonical form can be married just about anywhere. One of our parishioners was granted such a dispensation recently. Once the Bishop said he could be married by the Anglican minister the location became irrelevant. The marriage was celebrated in his parents’ back yard and he’s now in a valid, sacramental marriage.

 

[Phemie]

I’m really trying to get to the heart of what makes the sacramental marriage valid. It is not the process because marriages outside the church are valid. It is also not the intent because my marriage is considered invalid.

You’ve got it backwards.
It’s not sacramental that makes it valid. It’s valid that makes it sacramental.

If the marriage is valid and both are baptized, it’s sacramental.
If it’s valid but one is not baptized it’s not sacramental.

Baptism & validity determine the sacramental nature of a marriage.

For the Catholic, validity involves following the rules of the Church by either getting married by a priest/deacon (or lay person in some rare case) in a Catholic Church or getting a dispensation allowing you be married by the clergy of another Church or a judge/justice of the peace.

 

[Brooklyn]

But I did say ‘with the proper dispensation’. A Catholic with a dispensation from canonical form can be married just about anywhere. One of our parishioners was granted such a dispensation recently. Once the Bishop said he could be married by the Anglican minister the location became irrelevant. The marriage was celebrated in his parents’ back yard and he’s now in a valid, sacramental marriage.

Ok, thanks. Just needed that proviso that to use a place other than the Church we need to get dispensation from the Bishop.

Are you sure, though, that even though the marriage is valid that it is also sacramental being married by an Anglican minister? That doesn’t sound right to me. Do you have any sources on that?

 

[Phemie]

Ok, thanks. Just needed that proviso that to use a place other than the Church we need to get dispensation from the Bishop.

Are you sure, though, that even though the marriage is valid that it is also sacramental being married by an Anglican minister? That doesn’t sound right to me. Do you have any sources on that?

A valid marriage of two baptized people is sacramental. It doesn’t matter who witnessed the marriage, if it’s valid it’s sacramental. They weren’t married BY the Anglican minister they were married by each other if I can put it that way. The Anglican minister just witnessed it.

For example, our daughter is in an invalid marriage. If she ever decides to have a convalidation I will be over the moon. But even if she does have it convalidated she won’t be in a sacramental marriage since her husband has never been baptized.

 

[Brooklyn]

A valid marriage of two baptized people is sacramental. It doesn’t matter who witnessed the marriage, if it’s valid it’s sacramental. They weren’t married BY the Anglican minister they were married by each other if I can put it that way. The Anglican minister just witnessed it.

For example, our daughter is in an invalid marriage. If she ever decides to have a convalidation I will be over the moon. But even if she does have it convalidated she won’t be in a sacramental marriage since her husband has never been baptized.

Not trying to be argumentative but why would 2 baptized Catholics be married in front of an Anglican minister?

 

[Brooklyn]

A valid marriage of two baptized people is sacramental. It doesn’t matter who witnessed the marriage, if it’s valid it’s sacramental. They weren’t married BY the Anglican minister they were married by each other if I can put it that way. The Anglican minister just witnessed it.

For example, our daughter is in an invalid marriage. If she ever decides to have a convalidation I will be over the moon. But even if she does have it convalidated she won’t be in a sacramental marriage since her husband has never been baptized.

Not to be argumentative, but why would 2 baptized Catholic be married in front of an Anglican minister, and why didn’t they want to be married in front of the Blessed Sacrament?

 

[Phemie]

Not to be argumentative, but why would 2 baptized Catholic be married in front of an Anglican minister, and why didn’t they want to be married in front of the Blessed Sacrament?

In the case of our recent parishioner, his bride was Anglican.

But in one case we had two Catholics, one of whom was the granddaughter of the United Church minister. She wanted her grandfather to witness her marriage.

My point is that the valid marriage of two baptized people, be they two Catholics, two Protestants, or one of each, is sacramental.